3 minute read

Professional Standards: A Deep Dive

Welcome to HRRA’s new series on Professional Standards! Each month we will be featuring a particular standard of practice and reviewing a case interpretation. Case interpretations are official policy. NAR’s Code of Ethics Policy Statement Number 57 reminds us of such: Case Interpretations are official policy and are not merely advisory.

This month, we will be looking at Article 12, Standard of Practice 12-7.

Case #12-25: Advertising Role in Sales After Changing Firm Affiliation

REALTOR® Q was a non-principal broker licensed with ABC REALTORS®. REALTOR® Q specialized in buyer representation. A prominent feature on her website carried the headline, “I sold these and I can help you buy or sell, too!” Under the headline was a list of over a hundred street addresses of properties for which REALTOR® Q had found buyers.

For personal and professional reasons, REALTOR® Q chose to leave the ABC firm to affiliate with XYZ, REALTORS® As she transitioned to her new firm, REALTOR® Q was careful to disclose the name of her new firm in a readily apparent manner on her website. Her website also continued to display the list of properties she had found buyers for during her time with the ABC firm.

REALTOR® Q’s parting with ABC had been amicable, so she was surprised to receive a complaint brought by her former principal broker, REALTOR® C, alleging a violation of Article 12, as interpreted by Standard of Practice 12-7, based on her website’s display of sales made while REALTOR® Q had been affiliated with ABC.

At the hearing, REALTOR® C, the complainant, noted that Standard of Practice 12-7 provides, in part, “Only REALTORS® who participated in the transaction as the listing broker or cooperating broker (selling broker) may claim to have ‘sold’ the property. “It was ABC, REALTORS®,” REALTOR® C added, “that was the selling broker in these transactions, not our former sales associate REALTOR® Q. Her advertising our sales under the umbrella of her new firm, XYZ REALTORS®, is confusing at best, and potentially misleading to consumers who may get the impression the XYZ firm was involved in these transactions when that’s not the case.”

REALTOR® Q defended herself and her website, arguing that the fact that she had found the buyers for each of the properties listed on her website was still true, and that the only thing that had changed was her firm affiliation. “If it was true when I was licensed with ABC, then it’s still true even though I’m now licensed with XYZ,” she reasoned.

The hearing panel agreed that REALTOR® Q had, in fact, sold the properties, albeit while licensed with ABC. Her website, however, suggested that the sales were made while REALTOR® Q was licensed with XYZ, which was not the case. Consequently, REALTOR® Q was found in violation of Article 12.

This article is from: